Wright v. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 VICTORIA WRIGHT, No. 1:22-cv-01308-SKO 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS MATTER AND 11 RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, CLOSE THE CASE L.P., 12 (Doc. 8) Defendant. 13 14 15 On April 7, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with prejudice.1 16 (Doc. 8.) In light of the parties’ stipulation, this action has been terminated, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been 18 dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court 19 SHALL assign a district judge to this matter and thereafter CLOSE the case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: April 10, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 1 The parties’ stipulation also provided that the Court “retain ancillary jurisdiction for enforcement of the Settlement 26 Agreement between the Parties in its Order.” (See Doc. 8 at 2.) The Court in its discretion declines to adopt this portion of the stipulation. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994); Camacho v. 27 City of San Luis, 359 F. App’x 794, 798 (9th Cir. 2009); California Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Agric. Mgmt. & Prod. Co., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02328-KJM-AC, 2016 WL 4796841, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2016) (noting that “the court in 28 its discretion typically declines to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.”).